I welcome the opportunity of contributing to this debate. I am one of the few who has been a Member throughout the period concerned and, therefore, can speak with direct knowledge.
The role of the Government in this sorry débâcle has been less than honourable. It has blatantly attempted, by legal and other means, to avoid a clear obligation to pay those women their entitlements, an obligation which it conceded indirectly in the courts. I share the annoyance of others in regard to Deputy Ó Cuív's concern about where the money will be found to pay these women. I also share the view of Members from this side who stated that money can be found for other types of payment. If, say, headage payments were involved, money would be found. Media reports in the past 24 hours indicated that beef premia would be worth twice as much to farmers this year because they were previously set at a figure which anticipated much lower livestock prices. However, those payments will not be cut back. If money needs to be found in that area, it will be found. The Government should concede in principle on this issue and then decide how to pay. It will involve a large sum of money, but it can be paid on a phased basis.
I agree with much that Deputy Callely said. The matter was not dealt with in 1984, 1985 or 1986 because of the huge costs involved. At that time it included a negative cost, a huge political cost. Equalising up the payments would have led to a permanent position of double payments; therefore, equalising down was the only option. It would have been difficult for any Government to tell people that £20 or £40 would have to be deducted from their weekly payments. The matter was put off because it had negative as well as positive consequences. It was a matter of bringing equality into a paternalistic social welfare system and that was difficult to do. Eventually this was done, but an entitlement had built up because of the delay and we all accept that.
At the time of implementation we correctly decided on alleviation payments. In the last two budgets the Minister introduced taxation on social welfare benefits and as a result people lost up to £15 per week in take home pay. One can imagine how difficult it would have been to ask people to suffer a loss of £40 or more per week, depending on the size of their families. While the alleviation payments were all well motivated we did not anticipate the consequences of maintaining an element of discriminatory treatment in the system. When first introduced the alleviating payments were paid to male recipients and that continued to be the case. It is only in the last year or two it received the new title of "household subsidy" because that suits the argument the Government is using to avoid its responsibility. For the first five or six years an alleviating payment was paid directly to males and, unwittingly, another discriminatory element was introduced. That must be faced up to now. While it may suit the Government to say that this matter arose as a result of policies adopted between 1984 and 1986, many of the obligations to which we are referring relate to the period between 1987 and 1993. During the period 1984 to 1986 the Opposition continually called for assistance for those families who were losing money and even with the introduction of the alleviating payments the public were very critical of the consequences. Perhaps in hindsight it should have been called a household payment and these obligations might have been avoided, but that was not the case and the obligations must be honoured.
I am somewhat to blame for a lack of diligence in pursing this issue. I took at face value many of the communications I received from the Department of Social Welfare in this regard. When I made representations to the Department on behalf of individuals I received replies stating that X or Y had received their full entitlements under the law. When I made inquiries about the second round I was told it was no longer an alleviating payment but a household subsidy. The ground shifted, and it was only as a consequence of the successful court case that I became aware of the attempts of the Departments of Social Welfare to manipulate information on this matter. While many women have accepted their payments as total compensation, they were based on an assessment of their entitlements by the Department of Social Welfare which I am sure would differ greatly from an entitlement tested in court. Many women received much less than they are entitled to and the Government fails to acknowledge any further obligation in the matter.
Eight hundred women in Cork brought their cases to a successful conclusion which finally convinced me that the nature of the communications from the Department was deliberately obfuscating and prevaricating and that has been the case throughout this debate. The Government has continued deliberately to mislead people. Many women believe they have received all they are entitled to, but that is not the case. Some of them may not even have got their full entitlements for the period between 1984 and 1986. A case in respect of another large group of women is pending and the only advice we as public representatives can offer those women is to seek legal advice. That is the only way they can be guaranteed their just entitlements.
This matter did not arise as a result of what happened between 1984 and 1986, but because of the attitude of this Government and the failure of the Minister to accept his responsibilities. I acknowledge that the Minister has introduced many reforms in the social welfare system, but in this case he is coming out less than glorious. By using every trick in the book, the Government has fought every step of the way the legitimate cases of these women for their just entitlements. Women have contacted me about this and attended meetings organised by Democratic Left in my constituency. That money will not be pin money, but an additional income to supplement a family budget which in many cases is partly made up of income women earn from cleaning jobs, relatively low skill jobs, working long hours in a clothing factory or part-time work in shops. Money paid to this group of women who have family responsibilities will be used to good effect in the vast majority of cases.
I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute and to put on record my acceptance that these obligations occurred unwittingly, but they did and must be honoured. We accept our share of the responsibility. It was a difficult issue. The attempt to soften the blow of the consequences of the equality directive which was applied to a different system with a different philosophy led to those difficulties. The Government cannot avoid its responsibility to deal with the problem which continued during the period 1987 to 1993 and it should face up to it. We should accept the obligation and discuss with the women and their representatives how it can be met, phased in or otherwise dealt with over a period of time.
